These results can not be generalised to the Australian population due to the fact that the sample size is skewed in the above manner, the sample size is too small, and the respondents were not able to be randomly picked, very few complete data sets (principals and TL from same school) exist. However, it is likely the results are in the general direction for the populations of urban K-6 schools in Australia.
 

FREQUENCY ANALYSIS DATA

38 Teacher Librarians responded in Australia to the questionnaire.
FREQUENCY DATA was as follows:

Age:
51.4% of teacher librarians who responded were between the ages of 40-49.
35.1% of teacher librarians who responded were between the ages of 50-59.
8.1% of teacher librarians who responded were between the ages of 20-29.
2.7% of teacher librarians who responded were between the ages of 30-39.
2.7% of teacher librarians who responded were 60+ years of age.

Gender:
100% of teacher librarians who responded were female.

Type of School:
84.2% of respondents were from government schools, the remaining 15.8% were from private schools.

Advertised Position:
73.7% of teacher librarians who responded were appointed to an advertised position, the remaining 23.7% were appointed to unadvertised positions, reasons were not given for appointment.

Internet Connection in Library Resource Centre:
78.4% of TL’s who responded had 1 internet connection in the LRC.
10.8% of TL’s who responded had 2 internet connection in the LRC.
8.1% of TL’s who responded had 0 internet connection in the LRC.
2.7% of TL’s who responded had 6 internet connection in the LRC.

There is some concern on this question about whether or not research participants understood the question being asked, thus the accuracy of results is uncertain.

Internet Points in LRC:
70.3% of TL’s who responded had 1 internet point in the LRC.
10.8% of TL’s who responded had 0 internet point in the LRC.
10.8% of TL’s who responded had 3 internet point in the LRC.
2.7% of TL’s who responded had 10 internet point in the LRC.
5.4% of TL’s who responded had 20 internet point in the LRC.

The same concern exists with this question as with the internet connections in LRC question.

List Server:
48.6% of TL’s who responded did not subscribe to a listserv for teacher librarians.
51.4% of TL’s who responded did not subscribe to a listserv for teacher librarians.

Advanced Skills Teacher:
38.9% of TL’s who responded were not an advanced skills teacher.
61.1% of TL’s who responded were an advanced skills teacher.

Number of Years in Current Position:
50% of TL’s who responded have been in current position for 0-4 years.
27.8% of TL’s who responded have been in current position for 5-9 years.
11.1% of TL’s who responded have been in current position for 10-14 years.
8.3% of TL’s who responded have been in current position for 15-19 years.

Number of Years in Executive Position:
77.8% of TL’s who responded have never been in an executive position.
13.9% of TL’s who responded have spent between 0-4 years in an executive position.
2.8% of TL’s who responded have spent between 5-9 years in an executive position.
2.8% of TL’s who responded have spent between 15-19 years in an executive position.
2.8% of TL’s who responded have spent between 20-24 years in an executive position.

Number of hours TL/s do/es in the School:
57.9% filled 1 f/t position equalling 40hrs/week.
10.5% did between 10-19 hours/week.
5.3% did between 0-9hours/week.
10.6% did between 20-29hours/week.
5.3% did between 30-39hours/week.
5.3% did between 80-89hours/week. 2 f/t positions
5.3% did between 120-129hours/week. 3 f/t positions
 
Professional Association Memberships (Number of):
41.7% of TL’s who responded were members of 2 Professional Associations.
19.4% of TL’s who responded were members of 3 Professional Associations.
16.6% of TL’s who responded were members of 1 Professional Associations.
8.3% of TL’s who responded were members of 4 Professional Associations.
5.6% of TL’s who responded were members of 5 Professional Associations.
5.6% of TL’s who responded were members of 0 Professional Associations.
2.8% of TL’s who responded were members of 6 Professional Associations.

Qualifications:
48.6% of TL’s who responded had an academic qualification of a BA (Hons) or BA dip ed or equivalent.
40.5% of TL’s who responded had a Bachelors degree or equivalent.
10.8% of TL’s who responded had an MA degree or equivalent.

Number of Years Teaching Prior to Appointment:
27% of TL’s who responded had spent between 1-4 years teaching prior to appointment.
24.3% of TL’s who responded had spent between 5-9 years teaching prior to appointment.
24.3% of TL’s who responded had spent between 10-14 years teaching prior to appointment.
10.8% of TL’s who responded had spent between 20+ years teaching prior to appointment.
8.1% of TL’s who responded had spent between 0 years teaching prior to appointment.
5.4% of TL’s who responded had spent between 15-19 years teaching prior to appointment.

Number of TL journals subscribed to:
27.1% of the TL’s that responded subscribe to 2 journals.
24.3% of the TL’s that responded subscribe to 3 journals.
21.6% of the TL’s that responded subscribe to 1 journals.
8.1% of the TL’s that responded subscribe to 4 journals.
8.1% of the TL’s that responded subscribe to 0 journals.
5.4% of the TL’s that responded subscribe to 5 journals.
5.4% of the TL’s that responded subscribe to 6 journals.
 

40 Principals responded in Australia to the questionnaire
FREQUENCY DATA was as follows:

Age:
42.9% of Principals who responded were between 40-49 years of age.
51.4% of Principals who responded were between 50-59 years of age.
5.7% of Principals who responded were between 30-39 years of age.

Gender:
57.1% of principals who responded were male.
42.9% of principals who responded were female.

Type of School:
82.9% of principals who responded came from government schools, the remaining 17.1% came from private schools.
 
Number of Years in Current Position:
60% of principals who responded have been in current position for 0-4 years.
25.7% of principals who responded have been in current position for 5-9 years.
14.3% of principals who responded have been in current position for 10-14 years.
 
Number of Years in Executive Position:
31.4% of principals who responded have been in executive positions for 10-14 years.
20% of principals who responded have been in executive positions for 15-19 years.
17.1% of principals who responded have been in executive positions for 5-9 years.
17.1% of principals who responded have been in executive positions for 25+ years.
14.3% of principals who responded have been in executive positions for 20-24 years.

Number of TL’s the Principal has Worked with:
35.2% of principals who responded have worked with 1-2 TL’s.
32.4% of principals who responded have worked with 3-4 TL’s.
20.6% of principals who responded have worked with 5-6 TL’s.
8.8% of principals who responded have worked with 7-8 TL’s.
2.9% of principals who responded have worked with more than 9 TL’s.

Professional Associations:
31.4% of principals who responded were members of 2 Professional Associations.
31.4% of principals who responded were members of 3 Professional Associations.
20% of principals who responded were members of 1 Professional Associations.
8.6% of principals who responded were members of 0 Professional Associations.
8.6% of principals who responded were members of 4 Professional Associations.
 
Qualifications:
35.3% of principals who responded had an Honours, Dip Ed degree or equivalent.
32.4% of principals who responded had a MA degree.
29.4% of principals who responded had a Bachelors Degree.
2.9% of principals who responded had a PhD degree.
 
Number of Years Teaching Prior to Appointment:
40% of principals who responded have spend 15-19 years teaching prior to appointment.
40% of principals who responded have spend 20+ years teaching prior to appointment.
11.4% of principals who responded have spend 10-14 years teaching prior to appointment.
8.6% of principals who responded have spend 5-9 years teaching prior to appointment.
 

FREQUENCY ANALYSIS of School-based Information

Internet Connections in the school:
100% of responding principals have between 0-19 internet connections in their school.

Internet Points in the School:
75% of responding principals have between 0-19 internet points in their school.
9.4% of responding principals have between 20-39 internet points in their school.
6.3% of responding principals have between 40-59 internet points in their school.
3.1% of responding principals have between 60-79 internet points in their school.
3.1% of responding principals have between 80-99 internet points in their school.

Number of Students in School:
40% of responding principals have 200-399 students in their school.
31.4% of responding principals have 400-599 students in their school.
14.3% of responding principals have 0-199 students in their school.
8.6% of responding principals have 1000+ students in their school.
2.9% of responding principals have 600-799 students in their school.
2.9% of responding principals have 800-999 students in their school.

Number of Teaching Staff in School:
53.1% of principals who responded have 0-19 teaching staff.
31.3% of responding principals have 20-39 teaching staff.
6.3% of responding principals have 40-59 teaching staff.
6.3% of responding principals have 80-99 teaching staff.
3.1% of responding principals have 60-79 teaching staff.
 
Number of TLs on Staff:
70.6% of responding principals have one full/time TL.
17.6% of responding principals have less than one full/time TL.
8.8% of responding principals have two full/time TLs on staff.
2.9% of responding principals have three full/time TLs on staff.

Location of School:
88.6% of responding principals’ schools are located in urban areas.
11.4% of responding principals’ schools are located in rural areas.
 
Year Levels of School:
82.9% of responding principals’ schools were K-6.
8.6% of responding principals’ schools were 7-10.
2.9% of responding principals’ schools were 11-12.
5.7% of responding principals’ schools were K-10.
 

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FROM FREQUENCY ANALYSIS

Descriptive Statistics from frequency analysis for Teacher Librarians perception of time spent on tasks/ or in support of tasks by the Principal
 

Question	Present	Present	Future	Future
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
1	3.4121	.722	3.789	.741
2	3.184	1.010	3.737	.760
3	3.632	.786	3.711	.927
4	3.395	.755	3.632	1.125
5	3.263	1.005	3.737	.921
6	3.263	1.267	3.632	.970
7	2.921	1.343	3.263	1.349
8	3.237	1.076	3.342	1.381
9	2.368	1.303	3.316	.873
10	2.789	1.166	3.526	.893
11	3.184	1.205	3.737	.724
12	2.132	1.436	3.289	1.183
13	3.395	1.054	3.763	.751
14	2.395	1.242	3.237	.998
15	3.342	1.021	3.658	.966
16	2.421	1.328	3.158	1.220
17	3.158	.886	3.421	.976
18	2.632	1.025	3.026	1.026
19	2.816	.926	3.053	.985
20	2.421	.919	2.816	1.062
21	2.789	1.298	3.316	.933
22	2.789	1.044	3.211	1.044
23	2.579	1.368	3.026	1.241
24	3.079	1.239	3.553	1.005
25	3.211	1.119	3.526	.979
26	2.553	1.032	2.895	1.203
27	2.974	1.052	3.395	.855
28	2.947	1.161	3.395	1.054
29	2.658	1.279	2.947	1.161
30	2.132	1.580	3.132	1.095
31	1.632	1.422	2.737	1.178

 
 Results from responses to Questions:

1. Whilst on average the TL’s who responded view their principals as spending between some and a lot of time advocating a facilitating the development of an information literate school, they feel that the principal should be spending just a little more time on this task.
2. Whilst on average the TL’s who responded view their principals as spending some time on ensuring that the attainment of information literacy is part of the school plan they feel that the principal should be spending almost a lot of time on this task in the future.
3. TL’s who responded presently believe that the principal spend between some and a lot of time encouraging and facilitating the professional development of staff, these TL’s believe that the principal should continue to spend the same amount of time on the task in the future.
4. TL’s currently believe that their principals spend around some time on understanding and advocating the role of the teacher librarian (as per ministry/system policies) in the school’s instructional program. However the TL’s feel that in the future their principals should be spending between some and a lot of time on this task.
5. TL’s currently perceive their principals as spending a little more than some time on demonstrating support for collaboration among the TL and teaching staff, but should increase this time to almost a lot in the future.
6. TL’s currently perceive their principals as pending a little more than some time on ensuring that the school library resource centre objectives reflect school goals, but should increase this time to between some and a lot in the future.
7. TL’s currently perceive their principals as spending a little under some time on ensuring that the TL has an appropriate allocation of support stuff, and feel this time should be increased to a little over some in the future.
8. TL’s currently perceive their principals as spending a little over some time on allocating adequate, flexible time for the TL to administer the LRC and feel that this is adequate time for the future also.
9. TL’s currently perceive their principal as spending a bit more than a little time on encouraging the teaching staff to involve themselves in the development of LRC policies and programs and feel that this needs to be increased to a little over some time in the future.
10. TL’s currently perceive their principal as spending a bit under some time on encouraging the teaching staff to invest time in cooperatively planning and teaching with the TL, but should increase this to between some and a lot of time in the future.
11. TL’s currently perceive their principals as spending some time encouraging and facilitating the professional development of teaching staff to enhance their understanding and use of information technology, but need to be spending more like a lot of time on this in the future.
12. TL’s currently perceive their principals as spending little time informing new teaching staff about the importance of collaborating with the TL but should be doing this more than some of the time.
13. TL’s currently perceive their principals as spending a little more than some of their time on supporting the development of a resource collection that is current and relevant to the curriculum needs of the school but should be doing this more like a lot of the time.
14. TL’s currently perceive the principals as spending a bit more than a little time on encouraging teaching staff debate about information policy but should be spending a bit more than some of the time on this task.
15. TL’s currently perceive their principals as spending a bit more than some of their time on ensuring that significant funding is allocated to the LRC budget, but should be spending a little more time on this in the future.
16. TL’s currently perceive their principals as spending between a little and some time on actively seeking outside school funding possibilities that can be used to supplement the LRC budget, but this should be increased to some time in the future.
17. TL’s currently perceive their principals as spending some time on engaging in regular and timely communication with the TL at present but would like this increased just a little to between some and a lot of time.
18. TL’s perceive their principals as spending between a little and some time visiting the LRC to observe the work of the TL and believe that this should be increased a little to some time.
19. TL’s believe the principals currently spend a little under some time encouraging the TL to debate and justify current practice and that this should be increased in the future to some time.
20. TL’s currently believe the principal spends between a little and some time asking questions of the TL about teaching and learning and believe this should be increased in the future to a bit less than some time.
21. TL’s currently perceive principals as spending a little under some time relying on the TL to keep him/her abreast of developments that affect the TL’s role but should spend a little over some time on this task in the future.
22. TL’s currently perceive their principals as spending a little under some time seeking advice from the TL with respect to issues of whole school information management, but should increase this time to a little over some in the future.
23. TL’s perceive their principals as currently spending between little and some time encouraging the TL to take risks but should increase this to some time in the future.
24. TL’s currently perceive principals as spending some time encouraging teaching staff to employ a wide range of information resources in their teaching programs, but should spend between some and a lot of time on this task in the future.
25. TL’s currently perceive principals as spending a little over some time encouraging the TL to take a leadership role in the development and maintenance of a school wide information skills continuum, but should be spending between some and a lot of time on this in the future.
26. TL’s perceive principals as spending between little and some time working with the TL to develop the TL’s personal professional development plan but should be spending just under some time on this in the future.
27. TL’s perceive principals as spending some time advocating that the TL be a member of key school committees to tap into his/her expertise and schoolwide perspective but should be spending between some and a lot of time on this task in the future.
28. TL’s perceive principals as spending some time encouraging teaching staff to incorporate the learning and use of a range of information skills into their teaching programs and to assess process skills as well as content but should be spending between some and a lot of time on this in the future.
29. TL’s currently perceive the principal as spending between a little and some time on providing time release and funding for the TL to undertake ongoing professional development and should spend a little more time on this in the future (some time).
30. TL’s perceive their principals as spending little time on ensuring the needs of the LRC are addressed when the TL is not represented on a key committee and should be spending some time on this in the future.
31. TL’s perceive principals as spending between none and a little time on seeking feedback from staff about their impressions of the quality of library resource centre services and should increase this to just under some time in the future.

Descriptive Statistics from frequency analysis for Principals perception of time spent on tasks/ or in support of tasks by themselves
 

Question	Present	Present	Future	Future
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
1	3.575	.594	3.750	.494
2	3.600	.496	3.800	.405
3	3.950	.221	4.00	.000
4	3.650	.483	3.600	.744
5	3.800	.405	3.900	.304
6	3.625	.490	3.850	.362
7	2.875	1.399	3.100	1.277
8	3.425	.813	3.450	.815
9	3.225	.832	3.425	.549
10	3.525	.554	3.650	.483
11	3.625	.490	3.800	.405
12	3.450	.783	3.725	.506
13	3.850	.362	3.825	.385
14	3.225	.698	3.475	.640
15	3.550	.783	3.700	.464
16	2.325	1.118	2.650	1.075
17	3.575	.549	3.650	.483
18	3.150	.622	3.175	.636
19	2.900	.632	3.150	.580
20	2.800	.687	2.975	.577
21	3.475	.640	3.500	.599
22	3.050	.783	3.150	.893
23	3.175	.903	3.300	.791
24	3.625	.586	3.875	.335
25	3.275	.784	3.525	.679
26	2.900	.841	3.125	.723
27	3.425	.675	3.600	.545
28	3.675	.526	3.750	.439
29	3.275	.599	3.425	.594
30	2.650	1.167	3.775	6.318
31	2.800	.758	3.125	.686

 
 
 

Descriptive Statistics from frequency analysis for Teacher Librarians Beliefs
 

Question	Mean	SD
32	3.921	.273
33	3.842	.437
34	3.632	.541
35	3.763	.431
36	2.289	1.011
37	3.737	.446
38	1.5	1.007
39	3.342	.669
40	3.526	.797
41	3.711	.460
42	3.553	.504
43	2.447	1.224
44	3.447	.602
45	3.395	.718
46	3.579	.793
47	3.605	.495
48	3.289	1.113
49	2.763	1.173
50	3.211	.843
51	3.737	.446
52	2.553	1.329
53	3.289	.956

 

The Majority of TL’s believe that the following statements:

• That the TL should be a key player in the school’s information literacy programs
• That the TL ought to have a qualification in education and librarianship
• TL’s ought to be appointed according to a merit selection process
• Should an unqualified TL be appointed to a school, I would expect that s/he undertake a specialist qualification in TL
• As TL I expect to spend all of my day in the LRC
• That staff developments should address the development of teachers’ information literacy
• The TL should be identified as an information technology leader in the school
• That TL’s should provide flexible timetable that best meets the needs of individual students, groups, and whole classes
• That Internet access should be available through the LRC.
• That students should have individual access to the LRC during class time.
• That the TL’s should provide appropriate inservicing to the teaching staff
• It is important that principals act as role models and mentors to staff who are reticent about the appropriate instructional use of information technology.
• That cooperative planning and teaching should occur in the classroom as well as in the LRC
• When the TL is absent, I believe that it is necessary to fill his/her position with a suitably qualified replacement
• That TL’s should be supported to achieve AST status and appropriate administrative positions
• That the TL should inform the principal about issues affecting the potential of the LRC
• That it is the TL’s responsibility to educate the principal about the tole of the TL
• TLs seek mentorship from teaching staff in addition to that provided by the principal.

• That the TL is good preparation for the position of principal
• That the principal is well placed to judge a TL’s professional competence
• That a TL should be timetabled to cover classroom teachers’ preparation time.
• That the principal should supervise the TL

Descriptive Statistics from frequency analysis for Principals Beliefs  
 

Question	Mean	SD
32	3.700	.464
33	3.725	.506
34	3.525	.933
35	3.100	1.194
36	2.025	.862
37	3.525	.506
38	2.100	1.081
39	3.050	1.037
40	3.425	.549
41	3.650	.483
42	3.475	.599
43	2.300	.992
44	3.350	.483
45	3.325	.656
46	3.700	.464
47	2.875	1.067
48	3.000	1.301
49	3.275	.506
50	3.600	.744

 

Principals differed to TLs in that:

• Principals did not believe it as important to find a suitably qualified person is the TL were to be absent
• Principals believed that the acceptance of the TL’s professional judgment relates directly to his/her credibility
• Principals also believed themselves to be well-placed to judge the TL’s professional competence.

T-Tests - Present vs Future Analysis

Teacher Librarians
Due to limited space only the questions that yielded significant differences between time currently spent and time perceived to be required in the future are presented. To be considered significant a difference had to be significant at p =/< .01.
 

Question	Present	Present	Future	Future	P value
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
10	2.78	1.166	3.52	.89	.003
12	2.13	1.18	3.29	1.43	.000
14	2.39	1.24	3.23	.99	.001
16	2.42	1.32	3.16	1.22	.008
21	2.78	1.29	3.32	.93	.009
22	2.79	1.044	3.21	1.044	.008
29	2.65	1.27	3.26	.97	.005
2	3.18	1.010	3.73	.76	.006
30	2.13	1.58	3.13	1.09	.000
31	1.63	1.42	2.73	1.17	.000

 

This analysis demonstrated that TL’s believe their principals should be spending more time in the future on the following tasks than they feel they currently do:

• Ensuring that the attainment of information literacy is part of the school plan
• Encouraging the teaching staff to invest time in cooperatively planning and teaching with the TL
• Informing new teaching staff about the importance of collaborating with the TL
• Encouraging teaching staff debate about information policy
• Actively seeking outside school funding possibilities that can be sued to supplement the LRC budget
• Relying on the TL to keep him/her abreast of developments that affect the TL’s role
• Seeking outside advice from the TL with respect to issues of whole school information management
• Providing time release and funding to the TL to undertake ongoing professional development
• When the TL is not represented on a key committee, ensuring that the needs of the LRC are addressed
• Seeking feedback from staff about their impressions of the quality of LRC services.

This analysis demonstrated that principals also believe they should be spending more time in the future on the following tasks than they feel they currently do:

• Ensuring that the school library resource centre objectives reflect school goals
• Informing new teaching staff about the importance of collaborating with the TL
• Encouraging teaching staff debate about information policy
• Encouraging the TL to debate and justify current practice
• Encouraging teaching staff to employ a wide range of information resources in their teaching programs
• Seeking feedback from staff about their impressions of the quality of library resource centres services.

Teacher Librarian vs Principal

Present and Future Questions and Beliefs  
All significant t-values were unequal t-values due to the violation of the homogeneity of variance assumption on these questions.
 

Question	Levenes F - value	Levenes p-value	T-value	df	p-value
5 Present	18.288	.000	-3.06	48.21	.004
9 Present	11.966	.001	-3.44	62.32	.001
10 Present	17.531	.000	-3.53	52.29	.001
12 Present	20.321	.000	-5.00	56.55	.000
14 Present	14.237	.000	-3.61	57.59	.001
18 Present	10.580	.002	-2.68	60.43	.009
21 Present	11.844	.001	-2.93	53.37	.005
28 Present	10.555	.002	-3.53	50.97	.001
29 Present	18.922	.000	-2.71	51.86	.009
31 Present	39.511	.000	-4.49	55.80	.000
35 Belief	9.531	.003	3.29	49.44	.002
47 Belief	4.338	.041	3.91	55.69	.000

 
 

Question	TL Mean	TL SD	Principal Mean	Principal SD
5 Present	3.2632	1.005	3.8	.405
9 Present	2.3684	1.303	3.225	.832
10 Present	2.7895	1.166	3.5250	.554
12 Present	2.1316	1.436	3.45	.783
14 Present	2.3947	1.242	3.2250	.698
18 Present	2.6316	1.025	3.15	.622
21 Present	2.7895	1.298	3.475	.64
28 Present	2.9474	1.161	3.675	.526
29 Present	2.6579	1.279	3.275	.599
31 Present	1.6316	1.422	2.8	.758
35 Belief	3.7632	.431	3.1	1.194
47 Belief	3.6053	.495	2.8750	1.067

 

Analysis indicates that Principals and TLs differ on how much time they think the Principal currently spends on the following tasks. TLs consistently felt that the Principal spent less time on the tasks than the Principals felt they do:

• Demonstrating support for collaboration amongst the TL and teaching staff
• Encouraging the teaching staff to involve themselves in the development of LRC policies and programs
• Encouraging the teaching staff to invest time in cooperatively planning and teaching with the TL
• Informing new staff about the importance of collaborating with the TL
• Encouraging staff debate about information policy
• Visiting the LRC to observe the work of the TL
• Relying on the TL to keep him/her abreast of developments that affect the TL’s role
• Encouraging teachers to incorporate the learning and use of a range of information skills into their teaching programs and to assess process skills as well as content
• Providing time release and funding to the TL to undertake ongoing professional development
• Seeking feedback from staff about their impressions of the quality of LRC services.

• Whilst both Principals and TLs agreed with the statement that should an unqualified teacher librarian be appointed to my school, I would expect that s/he undertake a specialist qualification in teacher librarianship, the TLs strongly agreed where the principals agreed.

• Whilst the Tls were half way between agree and strongly agreeing that when the TL is absent, it is necessary to fill his/her position with a suitably qualified replacement, the principals were 3/4 the way between disagreeing and agreeing on this statement.

Other Variables
 

	Teach Prior	Number Executive	Gender
Teacher Librarian - Mean	2.2432	.4444	1.000
Teacher Librarian - SD	1.422	1.107	.000
Principal - Mean	4.1143	3.8286	1.5714
Principal - SD	.932	1.361	.502
Levenes F- value	7.041	5.995	1726.67
Levenes p - value	.010	.017	.000
t-value	-6.64	-11.48	-6.73
df	62.48	65.49	34
p-value	.000	.000	.000

 

Teacher librarians and principals differed significantly on the number of years they have spent teaching prior to appointment to their current position, number of years in executive positions, and gender.

While the Teacher Librarians were more likely to have spent between 5-12 years teaching prior to their appointment as a TL, Principals were more likely to have spent between 15-19 years teaching prior to appointment as a principal.

Whilst Teacher Librarians were likely to have spent no time in executive positions, principals were likely to have spent between 13-19 years in such positions.

Whilst Teacher Librarians were 100% female (in this sample), principals were likely to be an almost equal blend of males and females.

Present and Future Overall
 

	Present	Future
Teacher Librarian - Mean	88.7105	104.2895
Teacher Librarian - SD	22.394	22.008
Principal - Mean	103.0250	108.8
Principal - SD	8.775	10.047
Levenes F-value	24.961	4.952
Levenes p-value	.000	.029
t-value	-3.68	-1.15
df	47.62	51.2
p-value	.001	.254

 

Principals and Teacher Librarians overall differed significantly on the amount of time they perceived the Principal to spend on tasks. Principals viewed themselves as spending more time on tasks than did the Teacher Librarians. However, in regard to time the Principal should spend on tasks in the future, Principals and Teacher Librarians were in line, there being no significant difference between the two groups.